Whackadoodles Evening 2

Reminds me of a poster who has been on this and other forums in the past.



:couch:


You always had to double check that you were :imonline: and not watching the twilight zone if you know what I mean.

 

I find the swamp as wild as gators on the interstate. They're all over the place.

Saluda, who is a rabid Christian type, is the one who came up with the "volunteer your DNA and pay for processing it" idea. Even jams has told them this is a stupid idea, but that hasn't deterred some. Someone finally followed through with the theory and said what would the DNA be matched against? All other obvious flaws with the plan aside, is it really intelligent to flood an investigation already buried under 9 years of mistakes with useless busy work? And that's assuming the BDA would even have her one investigator still allegedly investigating the case run the "forum DNA" against what they have.

Then there's E2's brilliant idea of sending money to "help out with the investigation" by way of news organizations in Colorado. Jams has already called one which said no, they wouldn't handle donations for the BDA/government. I SWEAR I'm not making this up...and you know it!

Then there is Plan C: jams has members sending money to Smit directly. hahaha I just know he loves trying to figure out how to report THAT on his taxes! He's not a non-profit, is he? Does he make tax claims as a private investigator, overhead, etc.? Oh, well, who knows, maybe that lunch he buys some witness or informant will turn up that so clever intruder after all. :laffbig:

And here's the really funny part about the little tiff between Margoo and E2 going on right now: E2 is actually right! So you can imagine. She's not letting go of that bone. But neither is Margoo, who knows E2 is correct in that Margoo did make a little error in a point of discussion, having missed the Schiller doc recently. So in a discussion including info from Schiller's show, Margoo mistakenly attributed E2's information as originating in the PMPT movie. It was an honest mistake. But it's come to a Mexican standoff, as Margoo will not concede that she was the first offender, and E2 will not let it go.

Which is all beside the point, at any rate. The entire misunderstanding began because Margoo's focus was and is to dismiss the info that Burke's fingerprints were found on the glass with the tea bag at the table where the pineapple was also found in the bowl. It's obvious why she's desperate to do that. It's pretty damning info, if you think about the pineapple in JB's intestines. It's easy enough to imagine different ways that tea glass and the pineapple can be explained innocently. The rub, however, is that Patsy was so determined to deny that the bowl or spoon was hers, even though her fingerprints were on it, as well as Burke's. She also made it a point that the tea bag in the glass was not something she herself would combine. Then there is John's complete disavowal of any connection to the bowl or glass, either. Since they both have firmly planted their story that no one ate pineapple or drank tea after they returned from the Whites, it had to be on the table before they left home that afternoon, at the latest. Otherwise, it was placed there after they returned home. Burke never was in the kitchen that morning, escorted out quickly after LE arrived. So if Burke was the one who had the tea and got out the bowl of pineapple, his fingerprints being on both, and it being not likely he did the dishes or put them up after washing, that puts Burke at the table where it is most likely if not downright positive JonBenet ate the pineapple later found in her intestines. It is true digestive times will vary depending upon circumstances, so what's the big deal? It's the strange denial of any link to them by anyone in the home. Once you start denying the ordinary in a case so confused by inconsistencies, that's a red flag and howdy.

When reading the Ramseys' interviews with LE, I often find myself wondering if they actually lived in the house at all. I may be unusual, but I doubt if you could find much in my home, if anything, that I don't know about. My husband's tools and such are the exception, so outside the home, you can refer to him. I doubt there's anything out there he can't tell you where it came from and why it's where it is found. I also can tell you who used every towel, washcloth, what all the clothes have been through and where they are, not to mention who took a bath when, who ate what, and when.... I'm the manager of my home and family. That's my job. How anyone who does the same is so lost in her own home, I cannot understand. I can allow for a certain amount of traveling, upper crust lifestyle that delegates the lesser chores to paid staff, but then that would be their job, and I'd expect them to know what I don't and be able to report to me any info needed in that area.

So not even knowing your own dishes and silver...that's strange to me. In fact, considering the importance of it, I'd be all over it if I was shown such a picture during the investigation of my child's murder. If I really didn't recognize it, I'D BE FINDING OUT IF ANYONE IN MY EMPLOY OR FAMILY DID. I certainly wouldn't be limply dismissing it as something I just don't recognize...NEXT! What parent could possibly be so careless? Patsy and John Ramsey never struck me as careless.

So this new Schiller fingerprint info Margoo is so keen to deny has got me rethinking Burke's part in this case. Like the Ramseys, Margoo is making much ado. She's even declared she's not going to accept it as fact unless she sees it put forth by a more reliable source. That was Patsy's very reaction when she was told by Haney the evidence is clear that JonBenet had been molested before that night, as well: SHOW ME THAT EVIDENCE. Very strange reaction, IMO.

When the trickster is distracting you with his right hand, watch his left....

 

I know you speak the truth! Especially this bit:-

That is precisely what I feel about Burke and the 911 call.

It would be so ordinary... so normal .. for a child who is not afraid of his parents to go downstairs and ask "What is wrong? What did you find?" - yet we have Burke Ramsey asleep. No, not asleep - awake but pretending to be asleep.

That isn't normal.

 

There is one point about the DNA match/doesn't match that never gets included in the swamp discussion: look at the partial reports we have seen of the DNA testing, which Jayelles mentioned, that were shown on a documentary program. If you look closely at the descriptive language on one of those pages, I believe it says the DNA does not match (various persons) IF THE DNA IS FROM ONE DONOR. But IF it's from two or more...all bets are off.

At any rate, Punisher is correct. You can match this DNA to a man and you still will not have a case for murder. There would have to be more evidence connecting the person to the crime scene and the crime. There are a million ways that DNA could have gotten on JonBenet.

But even more important is the CAVEAT in the DNA report: so and so and so can be excluded as the donor IF IT IS CONTRIBUTED BY ONLY ONE DONOR. If it's a mixture...as was clearly stated in the lab report we saw, I believe (and please, correct me if I'm wrong), then neither the Ramseys nor the others listed could be EXCLUDED, as I read it.

That has been discussed many times in the past, though it's oddly left out of most discussions of the DNA now. I'm not strong in the science of DNA, obviously, so I'd be happy to consider my errors in thinking about this if anyone would like to point them out. But what I do wonder is how any "intruder" defendant's lawyer is going to handle this DNA elimination within the language of the report: IF there was only one donor. Have the forensic experts determined if there WAS only one donor? Or is all the info about the "mystery DNA" coming from that second sample? Have we seen THOSE reports? If not, does that mean that we aren't going to give any credence to this info, as we only have heard it on the same documentaries that Margoo now says we're not to consider without further documentation?

Oh, it's just silly trying to make sense of any of this at this point, isn't it? I'm really losing steam. 10 years.... :verdict:

 

Exactly!

It would have been so much easier to simply say, perhaps JonBenét got up and had a snack after being put to bed and came across the alleged intruder or was seen through the windows by him and he then convinced her to let him in. Let's face it, the spoon and bowl set-up is more like what a child would have done in helping herself. It would be easier to deny knowing why one's prints were still on the dishes after having been run through the dishwasher but hey, maybe she pulled dirty dishes out of the dishwasher - she wouldn't be the first child to do this.

 

Anyone know what time those pictures were taken. (The ones of the tea glass and pineapple bowl.)

 

As far as I can remember, the picture of the pineapple and the glass were taken with the crime scene pictures of the home. I can only guess, but I'd say after the body was found.

You know, that's an interesting question. I might have known this at one time, but now I'm thinking...weren't pictures taken at the home...maybe even of the basement that morning when LE first got there? Or am I just confused about that. If no one remembers, I can look it up.

You know, when I die, I'm going to leave instructions for all my JB books and files, including my computer, to be buried in my coffin with me. Because I'm sure I'll still be looking up stuff about this case well into eternity.

 

Well, I'm still keen for the fight! A million and 1/2 ways, KK. A pirate's life for me!

 

Well, good for you, Punisher! You must be still young. I was when I started out on the forums. It's nice to hear reinforcements have arrived. I'm more than ready to pass the torch. :bowdown:

 

OK, fine! But it's gonna' cost you! Lots of crack. LOTS! And throw in a case of Jack Daniels to take the edge off.... :glug:

 

"You must be still young."

Arr, matey! I be 25 this fall!

 

Why, you're practically a baby! :baby:

Ok, good! Tricia won't let me quit, but I'm going to let you do the heavy lifting and toting. Whew! I'm worn slap out!

 

I get that a lot!

 

25?????

Why, my crack pipe and bong are older than you!

 

But there's nothing wrong with my brain!

 

While though dictionary.com does have this as its first definition of "faction", it doesn't mean it was in existence in this form back in 1996.


-Tea

 

Evening2 does such an amazing job typing for someone garbed in a jacket with extra long sleeves which wrap her arms around her body.


-Tea

 

Priceless

It should be noted, that this poster is referring to posts here which criticise her for openly calling Bill and Janet McReynolds "murderers" amongst other names. Her entire basis for this accusation is "historical writings" of the learned pair. She "sees" confessions in stuff they wrote long before Jonbenet was even born.

Evening2 sees nothing wrong in her calling the McReynold murderers:-

http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=1429&forum=DCForumID61#23

but anyone who condemns her for doing so without proof are guilty of "libelling" HER!

She's supposed to be married to a judge. I seriously doubt that. If she was married to a legal man, she'd surely know what libel is?

She wants posters here to leave her alone. Perhaps they will when she leaves the McReynolds alone?